ML20216F440
| ML20216F440 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/11/1998 |
| From: | Mccausland J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Lanham D NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216F445 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-60FR37374, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-51 AE96-1-001, AE96-1-1, SECY-94-179-C, SECY-94-179-R, SECY-95-051-C, SECY-95-051-R, SECY-95-51-C, SECY-95-51-R, NUDOCS 9803180391 | |
| Download: ML20216F440 (4) | |
Text
-
M mei e,#*"'%
1 qf UNITED STATES
^
- J.
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20ess.4001 g
f sg
- p
' March 11,1998 c
I MEMORANDUM TO:
Don L.anham, bCB, DISS, ADM
- FROM:
Jayne M.' McCausland, RGB, IMNS, NMSS
SUBJECT:
REGULATORY HISTORY FOR DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR FOWER REACTORS (10 CFR PARTS 2,50, AND
- 51) (60FR37374, 07/20/95); PROPOSED RULE -- RIN 3150-AE%
Attached for your processing are regulatory documents considered to be of central j
relevance to the final rulemaking entitled " Decommissioning of Nuclear Pcwer Reactors (10 CFR Parts 2,50, and 51). Also attached is an index of these documents. The designator assigned by the Rules Review and Directives Branch is AE96-1 and is noted in the upper right hand corner of the cover page for each document. Please send the copy of the enclosed c.,cuments to Carl Feldman, RES/RPHEB,1.1/S T9C24. Thank you.
j y
Attachments:
j
- 1. Index 1
- 2. Documents cc w/att 1: Betty Golden, RRDB/ADM
?MO \\
i
.jj jkf I}
%@p lllElli!Ill!ll!!Ill!Illilllll!
9803100391 900311 C* DR PR
,37
,_2 60FR37374 PDR r)C)l
)
l
o~
AE 96-1 REGULATORY HISTORY INDEX FOR PROPOSED RULE DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS (10 CFR PARTS 2,50, AND 51)
RIN 3150-AE96 P_DB 1.
06/30/93 SRM regar' ding SECY-92-382-Decommissioning-Lessons Learned 2.
06/21/94 Note to STreby, JGreeven, and WMMorris from SHWeiss
Subject:
Comments on the rulemaking package relative to decommissioring of nuclear power plants 3.
07/07/94 SECY-94-179 - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors 4.
09/26/94 EMail from Kenneth Hart with changes to the SRM on SECY 179/COMKR-94-002 attached 5.
10/05/94 SRM regarding SECY-94-179/COMKR-94-002 6.
11/04/94 Modified slides after EDO meeting on Proposed Decommissioning Rule Framework scheduled for Nov. 8,1994 7.
11/04/94 Finished slides for EDO presentation scheduled for Nov. 8,1994 on Proposed Decommissioning Rule Framework 3
8.
11/08/94 Slides for Selin and Rogers Briefing on Nov. 8,1994 - Proposed Decommissioning Rule Framework 9.
11/94 Slides for dePlanque briefing scheduled for Nov. 18,1994 from Nov.14 Meeting (Proposed Decommissioning Rule Framework) 10.
12/02/94 Memo for T. Ba from R. Do (draft) re telecon with Paul Blanch with list of questions / concerns attached 11.
12/02/94 Letter from Steven M. Garry to Donald A. Cool - Comments on SECY-94-179/1MA 12.
12/07/94 Decommissioning draft rule particulars not explicitly included in slides presented to the Commissioners 13.
01/16/95 EMail from Richard F. Dudley to Carl Feldman and Cheryl Trottier re DOPS comments on proposed rule i
AE 96-1 14.
01/23/95 Note to Carl Feldman from Brad Jones, OGC, forwarding comments in response to request for language 15.
Undated Analysis and regulatory evaluation of impacts of decommissioning in 1988 and 1994 rule and GEIS 16.
Undated Analysis of comments on the draft pol:cy statement on the use of decommissbning trust funds before decommissioning plan approval 17.
Undated 10 CFR Part 20.1406, Public Participation Plan 18.
01/26/95 Memo to multiple addressees from BMMorrison re Office Review and Concurrence on a Proposed Rule to Amend 10 CFR Parts 2,50, and 51 Related to Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors 19.
01/27/95 Memo to.6hn Larkins (ACRS) from Bill Morris forwarding proposed rule to amer.d 10 CFR 2,50, and 51 j
20.
01/27/95 Memo to Edward Jordan (CRGR) from E. Beckjord forwarding proposed rule to amend 10 CFR 2,50, and 51 21, Interoffice comments on final rule:
4 Undated NMSS comments 02/06/95 Memo to MLesar from BJoSheltors forwarding IRMB comments 02/06/95 Note to BMorris from GFCran4d forwarding IRM comments
{
02/08/95 Memo MLesar to BMorris foreArding ADM comments
)
02/08/95 Memo to John E. Glenn from S. H. Weiss forwarding NRR
{
comments i
02/08/95 Memo to Bill Morris from Joseph Gray forwarding OE no objections or comments 02/10/95 Memo STreby to BMorris forwarding OGC comments 02/10/95 Additional OGC comments 22.
02/15/95 Ltr from PMBeard, Floridt Power Corporation, to James M. Taylor forwarding comments on SECY-94-179/179A 23.
02/16/95 Note to Carl Feldman from Elise Heumann, OC, subject: OC review and concurrence on proposed rule to amend 10 CFR 2,50, and 51 24.
02/17/95 E-mail from Brad Jones to Carl Feldman subject: Edit a decommissioning package 25.
02/17/95 E-mail from Brad Jones to Carl Feldman subject: Final comments and no legal objection
AE 96-1 26.
04/18/95 Memo to John C. Hoyle from James M. Taylor re Changes to SECY 051 - Proposed rulemaking - revision to 10 CFR 2, 50, and 51 27.
04/18/95 Correction Notice with revised attachments to SECY-95-051 1
28.
05/23/95 SRM regarding SECY-95-051 w/ markup attached 29.
07/20/95 Federal Register Notice - 60 FR 37374; Publication of proposed rule j
i 1
p-4
ACTION - Parler, OGC/
4
/p < erg'o, Bernero. NMSS UNITED STATES
. ! 'y,,..
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS Cys:
Taylor 2'
wasswovow.o.c.rossa Sniezek t
- 4 *
(
Thompson June 30, 199 4
Bldha pgAlcy y dy
\\
OFFCE OF THE SECRETARY =,
y s
"Y 7
h 1
MEMORANDUM TO:
William C.
Parler f
General Counsel p b N d ##
~
James M. Taylor k.w &
gT Executive Director for O era ions y)hd.4w E
.FROM:
Samuel.*/. Chilk, Secret pn
(,
I m Ss/
}
SUBJECT:
t SECY-9't-382 - DECOMMISS ONING - LESSONS LEARNED V
{
j The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved the staff recommendation to amend 10 CFR 5 50.59 to make it expressly L'm applicable to holders of licenses not authorizing operation and i
i to J rovide cuidance for a polying 10 CFR 5 50.59, after permanent chutdown, to the effect t1at one need not presume operation so long as there is a POL, confirmatory order or other legally binding instrument to remove the authcrization to operate the facility in place.
The Commission (with Commissioners Curtiss, Remick and de Plangue'g/76 agreeing) approves OGC's recommendation that the staff provide Luidance on the activities permissible crior to approval of the decommissioning plan.
The guidance should be consistent with the ' p"-Q er criteria that the activities must not (1) foreclose the release of the site.for possible unrestricted use, (2) significantly increase decommissioning costs, (3) cause any significant environmental impact not previously reviewed or (4) violate the terms of the licensee's existing license (e.g,., OL, POL, OL with confirmatory shutdown order, etc.) or 10 CFR 50.59 as applied to r
the existing license.
The Chairman would have preferred not to h-permit major structural changes to a facility or major radioactive components of the facility (e.g. disassembly of the pressure' vessel or the steam generators) until the decommissioning plan is approved even if such activities would be
_ permitted under the above criteria.
Commissioner Rogers would SECY NOTE:
THIS SRM AND THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAIIABLE 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
SECY-92-382 WAS PREVIOUSLY RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC ON MARCH 8, 1993.
6 o.rm e
-(t y $4-196 & ~
COk
1
~
t t have preferred to avait the staff's development of guidance C LfN l
before deciding this issue.
The staff should forward the proposed rule and quidance to the._CommissioD for review and b*j I
I p I.t "[4
~
g5 approval prior to publication for formal public comment.
t (OGC/EBO-)
(SECY Suspense:
12/17/93)
J H && - M ll The Commission has determined that the NRC will not review or '
approve, in the context of a decommissioning plan review, any decommissioning activities which can be undertaken without prior NRC approval pursuant to the criteria in the preceding paragraph.
j Consistent with this approach, the focus of the NRC's review of proposed decommissioning plans should be on the assurance provided by the plans that a return to an unrestricted use condition will be achieved (e.g., decommissioning funding amount and method, final cleanup criteria and final survey plan).
I However, so that the NRC can fully evaluate the proposed activities which it must approve, the proposed decommissioning plan should describe the licensee's decommissioning activities as required by 10 CFR 50.82(b), (c) and (d).
These activities include those carried out under 10 CFR 50.59.
The description of these latter activities need not have any greater datail than the reports required by 10 CFR 50.59 (b) (2).
1
--W As the licensee's personnel and organization make the transition from operating to decommissioning, much care must be taken to assure that the decommissioning personnel learn what they need to know from the operating personnel.
Licensees must be alert to steps that may be taken under a revised 10 CFR 5 50.59 which may present unreviewed safety questions in an unexpected form.
Such considerations will require careful review and analysis by the staff in formulating the guidance discussed above.
The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved the
)
staff recommendation to recuire_licenseen of shutdown plants to Nh 1
'l.
inform the NRC, at an early stage, of their plans for post-i[
f [Jg$
9 Ss The staff should define b [h m_nutdown activities at the facility.
i ore precisely now such inrormation will be utilized in the overall decommissioning process.
(OGC/EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
12/17/93) jf The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved the staff recommendation to amend the regulations and provide for (1) definino a POL and (2) clarifying which regulations in Part 50 A mdy to POLS._ The staff should also prepare a recommended qlefinition of the term " permanent cessation of operation" and include it 171 Ine proposed rule change discussed above.
The Commission (with the Chairman and Commissioners Rogers, Curtiss and de planque agreeing) also has approved the staff recommendation to _ amend the reculatinns: to define and provide for (but not require) prompt Issuance of a confirmatory shutdown order after the permanent cessation of ooerations.
Commissioner p
W 9"d.6
Y
~
i'
. Remick believes that this practice will be unnecessary once the proposed rule changes have been put in place.
(OGC/EDC)
(SECY Suspense:
12/17/93)
.NM55
{
The Commission believes that the approval of a decommissioning plan should not be construed as an action governed by Section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act, and that the question of whether to offer a hearing and, if so, what type of hearing to offer, is wholly a matter of Commission discretion.
At the same time, the Commission (with the Chairman and Commissioners Rogers, Curtiss and de Planque agreeing) believes that, if the Commission chooses to offer the opportunity for a hearing on the decommissioning plan, any such hearing should be conducted and completed before the decommissioning plan is finally approved.
Accordingly, the Commission has disapproved the staff's recommendation to offer a
{
i post-effectiveness hearing on the decommissioning plan.
Commissioner Remick would have approved the staff's proposal for offering a post-effectiveness hearing absent case-specific considerations warranting a stay.
i The Commission (with.all Commissioners agreeing).has approved the i
ataff proposal to provide an informal process for early public
.p input in a manner such as soliciting comments, public meetings or ye Commissioner de Planque suggested that this early g/
other means.
public participation be sought following the permanent cessation (4g of operations but prior to implementation of any decommissioning
,/
- activities.
N The Commission (with the Chairman and Commissioners Rogers, Curtiss and Remick agreeing).would not object to the staff proposal to formulate an informal hearing process -- including simple notice and comment procedures -- for decommissioning plan approval.
The Chairman, however, would have preferred that the Commission go further and commit to additional options toward providing neaningful public participation in the process of commission review and action on decommissioning plans.
C amissioner de planque would have preferred that the Commission ret.l.n a variety of options as to how to afford public participation in consideration of a decommissionfag plan and not define a specific informal hearing process for Lonsideration of decommissioning orders.
cc:
The Chairman commissioner Rogers commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque i
OIG i
Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW (via E-Mail)
ASLBP (via FAX) e